Decoding Collective Action Dilemmas in Historical Precincts of Delhi

Abstract

There is a growing understanding that cultural heritage needs to be understood as a “common good”, pivotal to the sustainable development of communities. Cultural goods create multiple value streams for stakeholder groups whose interests and objectives often collide, leading to governance failures. The management of cultural goods can be seen as a collective action problem arising from the interaction of numerous actors. In the first part, the article highlights the importance of analyzing cultural heritage sites and areas as common goods. Within this context, I highlight why collaborative processes of decision-making and planning are crucial for the sustainable conservation of heritage resources and tourism management. In the second section, the paper applies the Institutional Analysis and Development—Network of Adjacent Action Situations (IAD-NAAS) framework to explore collective action dilemmas at Nizamuddin Basti in New Delhi. Application of the framework allows one to explore interrelated governance dilemmas by understanding stakeholder dynamics within governance action situations with interdependent outcomes. The paper concludes with a suggestive framework for a cultural collaborative process keeping the cultural identity of residents as the focal point. While the IAD-NAAS framework is useful in diagnosing the contending interests and their consequences, the IAD framework could also be considered a starting point to define a framework for a collaborative process.

1. Introduction

As the cultural heritage and its various (tangible and intangible) expressions have come to be recognized as a form of common goods, there has also been a growing recognition that the governance situations they present are complex. Given the diverse stakeholders, multiple value streams, and interests, management of cultural heritage sites and precincts have become increasingly complex. Recent academic scholarship and policy have shifted focus toward treating cultural heritage as a “common good” central to the development of communities and nations.

Approached as such, conservation and management of heritage sites and their precincts become a collective action problem due to strategic interaction between multiple actors [1]. This paper considers a historic landscape approach to treat the precinct around heritage sites as part of the cultural landscape where collective action problems arise. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework by Elinor Ostrom was developed to understand the conditions under which institutions and actors arrive at joint resolutions regarding the governance of a common good [2]. Though the framework initially emerged in the context of shared natural resources, it has since been applied to intangible resources such as knowledge and cultural expressions [3]. Understood as such, the management of historical precincts can be understood in terms of the IAD framework. However, the application of IAD analysis considers only a single action situation. Given the complexity of the problem involving diverse stakeholders and multiple interests, it seems limiting. Recent scholarship has expanded the IAD framework to analyze interdependent collective action dilemmas in the polycentric governance [4,5,6]. McGinnis [4] put forward the Network of Adjacent Action Situations (NAAS) framework, where actors in a polycentric governance situation influence the rules and the outcomes of independent but interrelated action situations [4]. Bertacchini and Gould [1], in their work, put forward an integrated IAD-NAAS framework to address the interdependent collective action problems of heritage management. The integrated IAD-NAAS framework allows an analysis of multiple action situations whose outcomes are interdependent and influence the rules of adjacent action situations. This paper utilizes the IAD-NAAS framework to understand the specific case study of Nizamuddin Basti. This paper is structured in three sections. After explaining how analyzing cultural heritage as “common goods” is a valuable approach and why collaborative processes of decision-making are crucial for sustainable conservation of heritage resources and tourism management (Section 1), I move on to analyze the IAD-NAAS framework and its application to Nizamuddin Basti in New Delhi (Section 2). The paper concludes with a suggestive framework for collaborative decision-making for collective action dilemmas for cultural heritage management (Section 3). The contribution of this paper is two-fold: (1) Positioning of cultural heritage as common goods and (2) theoretical analysis of an urban historical precinct in the global south through the IAD-NAAS framework.

2. Cultural Heritage as “Common Goods”

Humans and civilization have always considered heritage as an asset, though its nature and value have kept on changing. Until the 18th century, heritage assets such as sites, landscapes, monuments were valued for their intrinsic historic or aesthetic value. As tourism grew, the approach shifted from conservation-led approach to one more focused on the economic benefits of the heritage resources for nation states. In recent years, there has been another shift toward considering the intangible values associated with heritage that contribute to identity, community making, human rights, and well-being [1]. In this light, heritage can be seen as “cultural capital” that generate a stream of tangible (economic) and intangible (social) values, as argued by economist such as Throsby [7]. Thus, numerous values have come to be associated with heritage goods which in turn have effectively expanded the number of the stakeholder groups associated with management and claims over the resource.

Understanding that heritage management involves multiple stakeholder allows us to see the problem as a collective action dilemma for commons. “Commons”, in an economic sense are defined as resources that are non-rivalrous (one person’s use does not detract from another’s) and non-excludable (it is impossible restrain others from using the resource). Commons in this sense are “public goods” [8]. Interest and scholarship in understanding common goods and collective action dilemma has markedly grown since 2009, when late Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for her analysis of common goods(ibid.). Hess [9] further expanded the definition to include “new commons” and “knowledge commons” and opened up new considerations for cultural goods to be considered commons. Here, she emphasized on two additional features of what she called the “common pool resources”: (1) unlike public goods CPRs are rivalrous and (2) they are valued and used by well-defined community. Heritage resources, such as archaeological monuments and sites, artefacts, performance arts, languages, and so on, are now being called “new commons”. Hess’s contemporary categorization of “new commons” defines them as “a commons is a resource shared by a group where the resource is vulnerable to enclosure, overuse and social dilemmas. Unlike a public good, it requires management and protection in order to sustain it” [10].

The “commons” nature of cultural goods is primarily due to their innate linkages to identity, culture, traditions, and their centrality to communal life. In addition, the benefits generated from cultural commons are mutually non-excludible just like any other common good. Cultural goods allow common expression and experience by communities [11]. Such shared values then facilitate cooperation or potentially facilitate cooperation [12]. Cultural goods as commons engage users in reproducing them and passing them to the next generations building up inter-generation equity, a cornerstone for sustainable development [13]. Moreover, it is recognized that cultural heritage becomes relevant to the local community when people become active in conserving and preserving the cultural capital, thus, actively turning it into social capital [14].

Several international accords and conventions establish the vital role of communities in managing heritage as a common resource. Faro convention defined cultural heritage as “a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time” (Article 2) [15]. The convention, moreover, introduces the concept of “heritage community” as consisting of “people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations”. The Council of Europe [16] positions cultural goods as common goods and outlines the importance of citizen participation in ensuring its sustainable use and development. The council defines cultural heritage as a “shared resource and as a common good”(Article 1). Faro convention’s emphasis on participatory governance lies at the center of a commons-based approach to heritage resources [17].

The appeal of treating heritage goods as commons lies in that it seems to offer a community-based collaborative solution to heritage management. The commons understanding of heritage resources emphasizes on the role of cooperative tools in building an environment for fair and inclusive governance [17]. Such an inclusive system is more likely to respond to local needs and provide benefits to the local community members (who are often considered the guardians of the heritage). Further, as laione et al. [17] argue a commons understanding of heritage management emphasizes the need for the development of a community around heritage regardless of the different legal statuses of the concerned resources. The commons solutions then present a sustainable solution for “controlling, protecting, and developing tangible and intangible heritage that simultaneously will be both ethical and practically effective” [8], p. 171. This, however, is easier said than done and the effectiveness of the best tools to manage a cultural commons depend on multiple factors.

Both Hess and Ostrom agree on two dimensions of commons: (1) Any common good (whether natural or cultural, tangible or intangible) is threatened by overuse, private enclosure, and dispute; (2) such disputes can be avoided through a system of governance for the management of the resource [8]. There is an overall agreement among the scholars of common resources that no commons can be expected to deliver benefits to the larger community without a functioning governance system.

The governance of heritage sites and communities around them is becoming increasingly complex as stakeholders’ contention over their role and associated values grows. International agreements and work by organizations such as UNESCO impact the ground situations in a limited way (especially in the context of developing nations such as India) and are severely constrained by decisions and laws of the national and local governments. The next tier of governance is formed by the national government and its associated bodies, who, while exercising monopoly rights over the nation’s heritage resources, often lack the funding [18] and tools (and often political will) to conserve. The local level of government, which is often the operational level, is constantly under criticism for its inequitable distribution of benefits to the communities. In addition, heritage sites might have other interested stakeholder groups such as religious boards, NGOs, corporates, and community organizations that assert a claim over its benefits and demand a share in decision-making. One could then argue that given the complex nature and number of actors involved, heritage governance is inherently polycentric.

Recognizing cultural goods as common goods paves the way for applying Elinor Ostrom’s common ground conditions [1]. Ostrom considered trust, trustworthiness, and reciprocity among community members as necessary conditions for the governance of commons. This happens when they agree on certain shared rules to access the “social commons,” i.e., the society functions as a coherent entity and takes up the collaborative governance [11]. Participatory governance is receiving increasing attention in Europe, especially in the aftermath of the Faro convention. This article takes the multi-actor and commons-based approach further to investigate governance in a heritage area in India.

3. Application of the IAD-NAAS Framework

The IAD framework was developed to understand the conditions under which institutions and actors reach collective decisions for the governance of shared resources or the delivery of shared services. Though the framework was initially developed in small-scale natural resources, it has been expanded in recent years to be applied to a range of other contexts, such as knowledge resources and cultural expressions. The IAD framework analyzes the main components of collective systems. Collective systems develop around the “action arena” that includes “actors” who act in a social space or “action situations”. The framework identifies the factors that affect the action arena by analyzing modes of interaction among individuals or “patterns of interaction” within the arena. The structure and functioning of the action arena are influenced by three external factors: (a) physical factors, (b) community structure, and (c) rules regulating the usage of the common resource.

IAD framework is typically used to address complexity within a single action situation. However, heritage management in practice is often polycentric, especially when there are multiple goals such as conservation of the site, tourism growth, and local socio-economic development. Thus, it would involve multiple action situations at both peer and hierarchical levels. McGinnis [4] introduced the Network of Adjacent Action Situations (NAAS) as a framework to analyze multiple action situations whose outcomes influence the components of other interrelated action situations.

McGinnis [4] argues that critical functions of polycentric governances constitute action situations in their own right. Bertacchini and Gould [1] developed an integrated IAD-NAAS framework in their seminal paper titled “Collective Action Dilemmas at Cultural Heritage Sites: An Application of the IAD-NAAS Framework”. The paper introduced an extension to IAD to understand the application of IAD in complex policy settings. The IAD-NAAS framework considers two action situations to be adjacent when outcomes generated in one determine the rules for interaction in the next. Therefore, applying the framework allows one to see a more complex and vibrant representation of interactions among action situations and contextualizes the behavior represented in any application of the IAD framework. McGinnis [4] argues that the IAD framework often applies to one example from multiple arenas of choice. This gives us an incomplete analytical picture as essential lesson can be drawn from various tasks carried out at the same level of analysis. Studies of polycentric governance at the operational level, such as production, provision, financing, coordination, and dispute resolution, constitute an action situation. For this paper, I focus only on the operational level of analysis (and not the constitutional level or policy level) as it is at this level that dilemmas are most visible, and actors are intensely engaged. This further brings attention to a bottom-up approach to decision-making and governance.

In complex polycentric governance situations such as those related to cultural heritage management, citizens interact with each other in multiple decision-making contexts. Thus, there is a need for a systematic investigation into how simultaneously occurring decision processes interact and impact policy implementation. Bertacchini and Gould [1] further say that it is “the action situations involving generic governance-related tasks are the fora in which collective action dilemmas are addressed” (p. 279) in the IAD-NAAS framework. McGinnis suggests a systematic examination and identification of possible generic action situations involved. Each of these tasks can be taken to define a particular action situation, which may then be studied in combination with other adjacent action situations. The generic action situations for the case study area of Nizamuddin Basti are identified in

Table 1. Generic action situations for Nizamuddin Basti: Author’s analysis based on McGinnis [4] and Bertacchini and Gould [1].

Actor	Objectives	Generic Action Situations
		Assignment/Appropriation	Provision/Production	Financing	Rule Making	Monitoring	Coordination and Dispute Resolution
UNESCO	Preserve OUV (Outstanding Universal Value (OUV): The preamble of the World Heritage Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) says “that parts of the cultural and natural heritage are of outstanding interest and therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole” [19]) and enhance WHS (World Heritage Sites (WHS)) Brand thru Master Plan approval and review process	Create master plans/guidelines for WHS site-place restrictions on consumption and appropriation of WHS heritage sites.	NA	Provide international fund (often limited)	Make rules and regulations to be followed by state parties to maintain the OUV status of the monument	Regular assessment of WHS site compliance/listing or delisting of sites from OUV status.	NA
ASI (Archaeological Survey of India)	Primary national agency to conserve heritage sites and enforce regulations.	Regulate use of heritage and area surrounding it	Fund conservation projects	Allocate revenue among tasks involved for management of sites (protection, conservation, license, tourist facilities etc.,)	Create formal codes, laws, and rules for conservation and management for all government protected monuments in the country.	Monitor and enforce provisions of AMASR Act (The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR Act) 1958) and other regulation	Interface between national/state governments and experts/UNESCOCoordinate with law enforcement agencies (typically the local police station) to resolve dispute or punish violation of provisions of AMASR act.
AKDN	preservation, socio-cultural development, urban regeneration		Financial and/or technical support for conservation, socio-cultural development, urban regeneration	Contribute/Raise funds	Partnership with public bodies to assist on technical expertise, advocacy, organization of self-help groups in the local community.	NA	Advocacy for sustainable development of heritage, socio-economic development of the community.
Local Community/Civil Society Groups	Benefit from tourism (employment and income), improved community infrastructure and services, maintain and promote community values and traditional culture	Assign/regulate local and religious sites for community use, manage informal economic activities within the neighborhood	Develop and maintain traditional art forms and practices, create tourist experience/provide cultural goods and artforms to tourists.	Payment of taxes	Advocate for local community interests/take part in decision making)	Monitoring local neighborhoods and site use especially for non-protected and religious sites.	Advocacy for sites with religious/cultural value, advocacy for decision-making powers.
Local government bodies (MCD/CPWD/PWD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)/ Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and Public Works Department (PWD)))	Generate revenue from tourism activities, regulate land use and building activities, provide infrastructural services.	Regulate economic activities, regulate local living conditions and infrastructure	Implement master plans, Fund and oversee implementation of local schemes,	Allocate resources especially taxes and fees among concerned departments and tasks.	Implement local and national regulations, create and implement local land use rules.	Enforce applicable regulations and laws.	Coordinate with law enforcement agencies (typically the local police station) to resolve dispute over local regulations.
NGOs and experts	Provide expertise, train experts, partner with government bodies	NA	Provide technical/academic expertise to public bodies or local residents (through organizations of workshops, partnerships etc.,)	Contribute funds/Provide technical/academic expertise	Form advocacy groups for heritage conservation and promotion	NA	Form advocacy groups for heritage conservation and promotion
Tourism Industry	Generate tourism revenues, profits and return on their investment	Promote tourism activities and business.	Invest in tourist infrastructure and services	Invest in tourist infrastructure and services	Advocate for interest of business operators and employees in the industry	NA	Advocate for interest of business operators and employees in the industry.

.

Only a limited number of studies have applied the IAD or NAAS or a combination of both approaches to understand governance dilemmas at heritage sites and areas. This is even though heritage sites and historical neighborhoods host a diverse set of stakeholders with multiple interests naturally giving rise to collective action dilemmas. IAD-NAAS was applied by Bertacchini and Gould [1] to two case studies: Machu Picchu in Peru and Angkor in Cambodia. To date, the framework has not been applied to an Indian or a south Asian context, presenting their local realities in a post-colonial setting. The polycentric nature of governance and multiplicity of stakeholders involved can lead to governance failures if not managed and can, in turn, adversely affect both the site and the community. While heritage scholars have shed light on this issue, no serious attempt has been made to analyze the governance systems at work sophistically or suggest a framework that can keep the shared nature of heritage resources at the center. Understanding cultural goods as collective commons remains limited for Indian academia and policymakers.

3.1. Overview of Nizamuddin Basti

Nizamuddin Basti (or settlement) was chosen to understand the application of this framework as it presents a complex and layered heritage precinct. Located in India’s capital, New Delhi, the area is centered around Humayun’s Tomb and Saint Nizamuddin Auliya’s Dargah (Shrine). The area has over 80 monuments spread over 100 hectares. A total of 36 monuments in the area are protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as sites of national importance. Under the Ministry of Culture (Government of India), the ASI is responsible for the administration, preservation and upkeep of heritage sites and archaeological remains of national importance. The central attraction is the Humayun’s Tomb Complex, a UNESCO world heritage site since 1993. The complex houses a tomb and a funerary garden memorializing Humayun, the second Mughal emperor, along with several other smaller structures. The latest attraction of the area is the restored Sunder Nursery. The garden complex was established in 1912 by the British colonial government to supply the gardening needs of the newly established imperial capital, New Delhi. Today, the 28 hectares complex is one of the largest open spaces in the city. The area derives its significance from Sufi Saint Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya (died 1325 AD), buried here in the courtyard of the Jamaat Khana mosque.

As a result, the area became a preferred site of royal burial for centuries and is now a famous pilgrimage and tourist spot. Sharma [20] argue that the Basti is a fine example of a “contemporary Shahar” where tradition and modernity are experienced simultaneously. According to her, a Shahar is what we now call a historic urban precinct in a particular South Asian post-colonial setting. These medieval settlements declined with colonization and were continuously neglected in the post-colonial polity. She argues that these Shahars need to be visualized as cultural assets that can shape the urban future in South Asia.

The Nizamuddin Basti houses 20,000 residents who form one of the city’s oldest inhabitants, some tracing their origin to the 14th century. Nizamuddin Basti has one of India’s highest concentrations of medieval heritage sites, connected with a shared history of almost 800 years. Along with tangible heritage sites, the area also hosts innumerable intangible heritage assets such as handicrafts, food, music and rituals.

The ongoing Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Project makes the area suitable to study. The project started in 2007 and kept the area’s historical character at the center of its urban rejuvenation programme. It is a People-Public-Private partnership between Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) and several government bodies (Archaeological Survey of India or ASI Ministry of Tourism, South Delhi Municipal corporation or SDMC) the residents of the area. It couples heritage conservation activities with socio-economic activities such as educational training, health support, skill development, and capacity building, targeted at improving the residents’ quality of life. The project is unique in its approach where it targets not only heritage conservation of particular sites and monuments but takes a wholesome approach toward rejuvenation of the heritage community by targeting multiple sectors such as heritage conservation, tourism development, skill development of artisans, youth and women, environmental management, health development, and so on. Sharma argues that the project draws on the Geddesian (Patrick Geddes was a sociologist and town planner who travelled to the Indian subcontinent during the British colonization and prepared improvement schemes for several towns and cities. He argued that the historic settlements of India deserved improvements rather than coercive restructuring action as recommended by the colonial state. He, thus, advocated the historic towns as places of cultural merit) principle in its approach of preserving the past while simultaneously addressing people’s present and future needs. This is achieved through the collaborative participation of professionals and citizens [20].

3.2. Action Situations in Nizamuddin Basti

For our analysis, we take four of these action situations to see their interconnected outcomes and impacts on each other. Nizamuddin Basti represents a complex situation where any action situations are possible. For the sake of analysis and at a level of abstraction, this paper analyzes four action situations based on the generic action situations identified in Table 1. These action situations were selected based on the literature research and official documents. Each action situation is demarcated with its corresponding actors and outcomes. Arrows between action situations then explain how the work of one action situation influences the value of the adjacent action situation. These “rules” are defined as “generally agreed-upon and enforced prescriptions that require, forbid, or permit specific actions for more than a single individual” [21], p. 250 and are explained in detail by Ostrom [22]. He outlines seven types of rules that affect the operational level action situations; position rules, boundary rules, choice rules, aggregation rules, information rules, payoff rules, and scope rules. A summary of the rules is given in

Table 2. Types of rules affecting adjacent action situations. Source: Author’s analysis of [22].

Rule	Function
Position rules	Create positions for actors (trader/expert/official etc.,)
Boundary rules	Define who qualifies to hold certain positions, the process by which positions are assigned and the process to exit the position.
Choice rules	Prescribe action choices available for actors in specific positions.
Aggregation rules	Decide which players and how many of them can participate in a decision.
Information rules	Allow channels of information flows available to participants
Payoff rules	Assign rewards or sanctions to actions taken or outcomes
Scope rules	Establish the range of possible outcomes (otherwise actors can affect any physically possible outcomes).

.

The goal of the paper is not to outline all the possible action situations (which would be virtually impossible in a complex problem such as this) but to analyze the interactions between the chosen action situations to understand the governance of cultural commons in Nizamuddin Basti through the application of the IAD-NAAS framework and suggest a theoretical framework for the management of cultural commons moving forward.

Action Situation 1: Conservation of monuments (Provision task) can be regarded as the focal action situation for heritage conversationist but involve other crucial actors such as the local government bodies, ASI, local religious boards, and the local population. The outcome is material conservation and preservation of historical landmarks as public goods. As evident in Figure 1, the action situation is influenced by the other three action situations. Increasing tourism and livelihood opportunities for the local population inevitably creates pressure on the heritage sites’ structural integrity and carrying capacity. This is especially true for the non-protected sites, which face the risk of degradation and complete disappearance.

On the other hand, conservation activities depend on tourist inflows to generate the required funds and justify the development of heritage sites as economic resources. This Action Situation is also affected by AS4, i.e., community involvement in heritage management and decision-making, where greater community participation can ensure that the forms and values of heritage valued by them are given priority in conservation works. Which structures and sites are considered worthy of conservation are often dictated by experts who come with their vision of an “Authorised Heritage Discourse” or AHD [23]. Greater involvement of residents has ensured that sites such as public parks, smaller shrines and areas are also given equal importance. For instance, the conservation of the Jamaat Khana Mosque was initiated by the AKTC at the request of the local community in 2014, as the monument was unprotected and revered by the locals.

Action Situation 2: Livelihood development of the local community (provision/production task) involves interaction between multiple actors to produce income and livelihood opportunities for the local community, mainly focused on the heritage sites and cultural activities in the area. Residents are interested in continuing their traditional socio-economic practices to protect their cultural identity, and economic viability as tourism in the area improves. This action situation is directly and most intensely affected by AS1 (conservation of heritage sites) and AS3(tourism development). While the presence of heritage sites in the neighborhood brings economic opportunities, it also imposes restrictions on land-use and regulations. ASI governs the protected heritage sites through the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR) 1958, which imposes restrictions on constructions around the sites, affecting the choices available to the residents of the area.

The ongoing project involves creating opportunities, especially for the youth and children. For example, young college graduates from the area have been trained to become heritage guides and are organized under a self-help group called Sair E Nizamuddin (SeN). This, in turn, boosts tourism, especially for those looking to engage with the intangible culture of the area. Along with training in communication skills and history, the team is also trained in capacity building (AS4) to become self-sufficient. Since 2010, SeN guides have walked over 55,000 participants through Humayun’s Tomb, Nizamuddin Basti, Rahim’s Tomb, and Sunder Nursery from 324 schools, 52 universities, and 12 travel agencies. Even during the lockdown months of 2020, when the group’s ability to conduct walks was affected, they were engaged in online training workshops to enhance their decision-making skills and entrepreneurship skill [24].

Another major group that has benefitted from their engagement with cultural heritage and tourism in the area are the women. The 2008 Quality of Life Survey indicated that only 9% of women were part of the workforce [24]. Several programmes in the project cover training women in traditional crafts to make them self-reliant. Two women-led enterprises: Insha-e-Noor and Zaika-e-Nizamuddin, offer arts and cuisine of the area to tourists, thus boosting the outcome of two adjacent action situations: tourist footfall (AS3) as well as building capacity to allow women to participate in decision-making (AS4). Though the enterprises suffered immensely due to COVID-19 lockdowns and the slowing of the tourist economy, Insha-e-Noor still earned a total revenue of Rs. 24,42,000 in 2020 (25% less than 2019 41% less than 2018) (ibid.).

Action Situation 3: Tourism development (Assignment/appropriation task) refers to the use of the heritage and cultural resources of the area for tourism purposes and reflects the trajectory of the development of tourism infrastructure around heritage sites. Private business owners (such as restaurant and hotel operators, souvenir sellers, and transport operators), the Ministry of Tourism, local administrative bodies (Municipal Corporations of Delhi) and AKTC all share a common incentive in increasing the tourist footfall at the sites of the area and thus generate associated revenue. While ASI is not directly involved in this action situation, it can influence the outcome through its involvement in AS1(Conservation of monuments). Currently, the conservation and maintenance of heritage sites in the area are jointly undertaken by ASI and AKTC. By protecting the site’s integrity, beautifying and creating an authentic experience for visitors, they can influence the visitor flows and numbers. This was seen in the rise in tourist numbers. In 2019, 2 million people visited Humayun’s tomb, and another 4 million came as pilgrims to the Basti [25]. Conservation has not improved the current tourist destination but also created new goals. One of them is Sunder Nursery, a city park that hosts several restored heritage structures and has emerged as one of the top destinations for local and international tourists. The Nursery attracted 304,000 visitors in the 2020 [24] (despite the COVID-19 lockdowns as it provided a safe and open space for recreation). This action situation is also directly impacted by AS2 (community livelihood development) as it dictates the choices available to tourists and AS 4 (Community participation in decision making), where the community can decide on the nature of products and experiences offered.

Action Situation 4: Community participation in decision-making (provision/production task) refers to the ability of the community to organize themselves into formal or informal groups and have a voice in matters that decide the area’s fate. While the residents are highly motivated to participate in decision-making activities, they suffer from operational, structural, and cultural limitations to participation. The chief incentive for empowering the community members has come from AKTC through their project activities. The outcomes of this action situation trigger AS3, i.e., tourism development as well organized and empowered community, can offer better experiential tourism. It also influences the results and actors of AS1, i.e., heritage conservation, as residents attach different values to heritage sites. Their participation in conservation work can aid the outside experts in understanding local conditions and intangible values attached to heritage sites.

The community has displayed its ability to organize and make decisions for not only heritage management but also the overall welfare of its residents. 2020 was spent in the shadows of the COVID-19 pandemic and stringent lockdowns. With the support of expert teams from AKDN, the residents acted swiftly to provide relief. Insha e Noor, a women’s self-help group, used their embroidery and crochet skills to start making cloth masks, and over 20,000 were distributed in the neighborhood. This was in addition to health and awareness camps organized by AKDN and community volunteers field [24]. This effort by the local community health team established by the project was recognized at the London-based World Responsible Tourism Awards in 2020. This action situation directly impacted AS2, i.e., livelihood development of the local community, and AS3, i.e., tourism development (by providing a safe tourism experience, though numbers remained limited during the COVID-19 pandemic). As a people–public–private partnership, one of the significant components of the project has been dialogue with the community at several levels on various project components such as heritage restoration, tourism development, education, health, early childhood care, and development and sanitation. Each service is monitored for quality and implementation through a specially created and trained community group. As the project intervention period draws close, community-based organizations or CBOs have been initiated that can further sustain and manage the project activities with minimal support. This has been the major significant step of the project where it has invested decision-making powers back to the community and empowered the residents through capacity building, training, and initial hand holding since 2007. As per the latest status report of the project, a CBO, Association for Development of Nizamuddin (ADN), was initiated in 2020. Volunteers and leaders from each community group created under the scheme have chosen 23 core members who would form the main decision-making body in the future. The senior leaders are currently under formal training for capacity budling through workshops on the psychology of shifting, long-term thinking, and understanding the community and internal dynamics of the CBO. The group currently functions as an informal group that meets regularly (10 meetings a month on average) to cover everyday issues the residents face (ibid.). A summary of the action situations and their interdependent outcomes is shown in Figure 2.

4. Conclusions and Way Further for Collaborative Decision-Making

The above discussion and analysis can be seen as a starting point to chart a framework for a collaborative governance process for cultural commons, keeping the community’s cultural identity as the focal point. The IAD framework has proven to be an effective and flexible tool for analyzing standard resource systems (both tangible and intangible). However, the application has been typically focused on one action situation. This paper makes a case for treating cultural heritage as a polycentric and highly interactive system by going beyond and analyzing multiple action situations. This is especially so in contexts such as ours, densely populated heritage precincts where actors (especially the residents) are simultaneously involved in various decision-making processes and constantly make choices. Thus, applying the IAD-NAAS framework allows for better understanding among scholars and policymakers of the dynamic interaction among actors, situations, objectives, and rules in a given community’s socio-economic context.

Such collaborative management of cultural commons is expected to lead to urban regeneration and sustainable local development field [1]. Taking a step back from multiple action situations to once again look at micro pictures, this paper works on a suggestive framework based on the IAD framework. The framework is shown in Figure 3. In polycentric governance, this can be treated as a single-operative action situation connected to multiple other problems.Girasole et al. [11] designed a suggestive framework where they argue that community stakeholders (such as NGOs and informal associations ) along with entrepreneurs and public institutions can create an “action arena” based on their agreement over treating cultural heritage as a common good. Keeping the IAD framework and its further adaptions, such as that by Girasole et al. [11], I suggest a framework for collaborative decision-making for the heritage areas. The framework is suggestive and can be considered a starting point to enable community involvement in cultural heritage management and tourism decision-making. The framework builds on the findings from Chauhan [12], arguing that shared cultural identity and place attachment are the main driving force behind motivation to participate in decision-making for the residents of Nizamuddin Basti. The goal is not to give an all-encompassing model but to visualize heritage decision-making as an action arena involving multiple actors and interdependent outcomes.

The framework advocates the treatment of heritage sites as cultural commons and how one imagines an action situation based on this identification. Such recognition can then lead to interactions based on shared vision and identity, thus metamorphosing cultural heritage into a “cultural common” fields [11]. This would lead to an action plan to conserve (tangible and intangible) heritage and improve the community’s livelihood conditions. This, of course, is a “focused action situation”, and multiple adjacent action situations may exist with different objectives and outcomes.

Bertacchini and Gould [1] comments that while research is now aiding us in understanding the collective action dilemmas in managing heritage resources and areas, methodologies for engaging diverse stakeholders and collective interest remain limited. In most of the developing world, especially India, heritage management remains fragmented among several government actors and is often approached as a single problem. The primary contribution of this paper was to make a case for viewing heritage resources as a common good and viewing its management as a set of interdependent collective action problems. The form used the IAD-NAAS framework and identified four action situations to demonstrate how the framework can be applied to understand the interdependencies of stakeholders and diagnose the potential drivers of conflict.

Though on a minimal scale, an approach based on the treatment of heritage resources as a common good is being experimented with and applied in the Nizamuddin Basti through the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Project. The approach adopted by the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Project in the case study area implicitly enhanced the locality’s cultural heritage by investing in a shared identity, skill building, and integration of heritage management with the more considerable socio-economic development of the area. Shared local identity and place attachment of the population both acted as a catalyst for the project and were further enhanced. The action situation was formed by recognizing the historic center and its traditions as a common good by the local community.

Moving forward, this research makes a case for the active involvement of community stakeholders in heritage management decision-making. This is in keeping with the Faro convention that recommends community involvement in the identification, interpretation, protection, and preservation of cultural heritage and collaboration of institutions, associations, and citizens based on recognizing cultural heritage as a common good [15]. This is done by providing a suggestive framework that keeps the recognition of heritage as a public good at its center and advocates a move toward a robust citizen-led collaborative decision-making framework.